| Title |
Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer poses few limitations for selected elderly patients: a single-center experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Case Reports, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40792-016-0183-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Go Anegawa, Yuichiro Nakashima, Yoshihiko Fujinaka, Ikuo Takahashi |
| Abstract |
The safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) for early gastric cancer have been demonstrated in clinical studies. The aim of this study was to clarify the safety and efficacy of LADG in patients ≥80 years of age with early gastric cancer, an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of 1-2, and a performance status (PS) of 0-1. From April 2009 to July 2011, 12 elderly patients aged ≥80 years and 43 younger patients underwent LADG for early gastric cancer. Seven of the 55 patients underwent LADG and simultaneous surgery including surgery for colorectal cancer, cholecystectomy, or other conditions. Forty-eight of the 55 patients who underwent only LADG were studied. Demographics and postoperative outcomes were compared. The postoperative complication rate, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first fluid intake, and postoperative hospital stay were similar in these two groups. Nutritional status as assessed by body weight, serum albumin, and total protein at 1 and 3 months after surgery was also similar in these two groups. Postoperative outcomes were acceptable in the elderly patients included in the study. LADG for early gastric cancer is a safe and effective treatment in elderly patients aged ≥80 years with an ASA status of 1-2 and PS of 0-1. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 32% |
| Psychology | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,332,117
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Case Reports
#239
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,913
of 339,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Case Reports
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.